A customary divorce obtained by a Hindu wife from her first husband is valid and effective to dissolve the marriage, and a subsequent marriage entered into by the wife with another man is not void under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

MOTILAL B. NAIK, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 4-2-1997 passed by the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada in OP No. 44 of 1993 annulling the marriage between the parties under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

( 2 ) FOR the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as appellant-wife and respondent-husband.

( 3 ) WIFE is the appellant before us. The respondent-husband filed a petition (OP No. 44 of 1993) under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act to declare that the alleged marriage between him and the appellant which took place on 15-9-1980 at Lord Venugopala Swamy Temple, Gudiwada as a nullity and to pass appropriate order in the circumstances of the case.

( 4 ) ACCORDING to the respondent-husband, he is a resident of Jaggayyapet as on the date of presenting the petition and was working as a driver in APSRTC at Jaggayyapet. Prior to moving to Jaggayyapet, the respondent lived in Gudiwada from the years 1982 to 1987. During his stay at Gudiwada, the respondent came into contact with the appellant who is also a resident of Gudiwada. It was informed to the respondent by the appellant that she is unmarried. As by that time both of them had developed liking for each other and in the background of the fact that the appellant informing the respondent that she was unmarried, both of them went to Lord Venugopala Swamy temple at Gudiwada and exchanged garlands. Thereafter, they lived in Gudiwada. After securing a job of driver in APSRTC, they shifted their residence from Gudiwada to Jaggayyapet. They also begot a female child by name Naga Varalakshmi.

( 5 ) THE respondent-husband alleged that after five or six years of their marriage, he came to know that prior to his marriage with the appellant, the appellant was a married lady whose marriage was performed with one Dontagani Jamalaiah, son of Narasimhaiah of Cherukommupalem village as per the customs in the year 1977 and the appellant lived with said Jamalaiah. While the marriage between the appellant and said Jamalaiah was in force and not being dissolved by any competent Court by a decree of divorce, the said fact of the marriage was concealed by the appellant and she married the respondent. The first husband of the appellant, viz. , Jamalaiah started visiting their house at Jaggayyapet. When the respondent-husband found said Jamalaiah visiting their house on 7-4-1991, he questioned the appellant and made enquiries about the relationship. Thereafter, the wife left the society of the respondent-husband and filed MC No. 7 of 1991 on the file of the Additional Judicial I Class Magistrate, Gudivada.

( 6 ) IN his petition, the respondent-husband alleged that himself and the appellant are not husband and wife in the eye of law as they did not underwent the formalities required as per the Hindu customs and it is only an exchange of garland and as such it cannot be construed as a valid marriage. Even if it is to be held that his marriage with the appellant-wife is valid, since the first marriage of the appellant with said Jamalaiah was in force and therefore, the marriage between himself and the appellant has to be declared as void. The respondent-husband, under these circumstances, sought a direction from the Court below to declare his marriage with the appellant as void.

( 7 ) THE appellant-wife who is the respondent in OP No. 44 of 1993, contested the matter by filing counter denying the allegations made by the respondent-husband in the petition. The appellant-wife also denied her marriage with one D, Jamalaiah said to have been performed as per customs on 28-8-1977. However, the appellant-wife pleaded that even if there was such a marriage, as she obtained a customary divorce in the presence of caste elders before her marriage with the respondent and as such, she married the respondent. The appellant-wife also denied the allegation that said Jamalaiah used to visit their house. She further stated that the respondent-hu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document